Now conspirancy theorists think about it. The chiefs were the first to offer a contract to manning knowing full well we were gonna go after quinn and how much elway dislikes tebow. Does anyone know what was offered, that contract may be why manning wants more money now and in doing so tied the hands of our hated rival while we became better and they, the donkeys, were forced to wait for manning who in turn may go to san francisco.....oh and signed a stud cb from oakland.....and may still get tolbert. Yeah pioli sucks.

nigeriannightmare

03-19-2012, 11:32 AM

And pioli knew manning would never play for the new england connection.

Eydugstr

03-19-2012, 11:43 AM

Now conspirancy theorists think about it. The chiefs were the first to offer a contract to manning knowing full well we were gonna go after quinn and how much elway dislikes tebow. Does anyone know what was offered, that contract may be why manning wants more money now and in doing so tied the hands of our hated rival while we became better and they, the donkeys, were forced to wait for manning who in turn may go to san francisco.....oh and signed a stud cb from oakland.....and may still get tolbert. Yeah pioli sucks.

The rumor I heard was $34 mil. Which is peanuts compared to the $90 mil that Denver supposedly offered, and heaven only knows what the Titans offered.

Far as I'm concerned, the front office of the broncos got served. And they deserved it, too. If Manning signs with someone else, and Tebow leaves...Denver is going to be in doo-doo. If Manning signs with Denver, but goes down with an injury at the hands of the Chiefs or Raiders D, Denver will be in REALLY deep doo-doo.

figcrostic

03-19-2012, 11:44 AM

Now conspirancy theorists think about it. The chiefs were the first to offer a contract to manning knowing full well we were gonna go after quinn and how much elway dislikes tebow. Does anyone know what was offered, that contract may be why manning wants more money now and in doing so tied the hands of our hated rival while we became better and they, the donkeys, were forced to wait for manning who in turn may go to san francisco.....oh and signed a stud cb from oakland.....and may still get tolbert. Yeah pioli sucks.

Tolbert just signed with the Panthers, but I agree Pioli has done a good on the FA. I wish he could have gotten Orton or Flynn though.

nigeriannightmare

03-19-2012, 12:00 PM

The rumor I heard was $34 mil. Which is peanuts compared to the $90 mil that Denver supposedly offered, and heaven only knows what the Titans offered.

Far as I'm concerned, the front office of the broncos got served. And they deserved it, too. If Manning signs with someone else, and Tebow leaves...Denver is going to be in doo-doo. If Manning signs with Denver, but goes down with an injury at the hands of the Chiefs or Raiders D, Denver will be in REALLY deep doo-doo.

34 for one, two......how many yrs. Doesnt matter we gave him a contract wuthout even knowing if he cam throw...at the time.

matthewschiefs

03-19-2012, 10:08 PM

So the genius of it was to offer manning no money?

?????????????

We could of paid him more than denver did and afford any FA's we wanted.

Do you no what Denvers reported to be giveing him 5 years 95 million thats nearly 20 million a year on a 36 year old QB who your not even sure will be able to hold up for an entire season with his neck injury I think between the two Pioli was smarter

KristofLaw

03-19-2012, 10:14 PM

Do you no what Denvers reported to be giveing him 5 years 95 million thats nearly 20 million a year on a 36 year old QB who your not even sure will be able to hold up for an entire season with his neck injury I think between the two Pioli was smarter

I'd have to agree, the Donkeys are swinging for the fences on this one, but have lost out on a lot of action and will also be losing their quarterback of last season. Their remaining pot is in and around 25 million, which is still quite a bit, with quite a few holes and rookies left to sign.

The Pioli fish was dangling though and quite enticing I would guess. Just messing with you a bit there Orton. :D

N TX Dave

03-19-2012, 11:16 PM

Do you no what Denvers reported to be giveing him 5 years 95 million thats nearly 20 million a year on a 36 year old QB who your not even sure will be able to hold up for an entire season with his neck injury I think between the two Pioli was smarter

Question is how much is guaranteed and how much the 1st and 2nd years?

matthewschiefs

03-20-2012, 01:18 AM

Are you crazy? Obviously you can structure the deal where if manning does get hurt and cant play you dont suffer a huge hit from the cap. As I said before the reward here far outweighs the risk.

You're right but at the time he would get hurt there won't be any key free agents (impact players that you're so found of) The season would have already begun they will be long gone. Then what would that cap space do for you?

ChiefsFanTilDeath83

03-20-2012, 04:12 AM

we should sign Tebow it would give some competition at quarterback for the first time in a long time. Wouldn't it be odd if manning re injured his neck in preseason play.

AussieChiefsFan

03-20-2012, 04:23 AM

we should sign Tebow it would give some competition at quarterback for the first time in a long time. Wouldn't it be odd if manning re injured his neck in preseason play.

I actually thought to myself about wanting Tebow, I think his style of play would annoy me too much though (Dont get me wrong I really like Tim as a person, but his play annoys me as I said). Don't know he well it would go down with most fans though lol.

If Peyton were to be injured soon It would be great for us (and it'd be great laughing at those Donkeys), I'd still feel bad because I DO like him (Not as much respect for him any more).

Oh and Welcome to the ChiefsCrowd!!!!:bananen_smilies046:

dbolan

03-20-2012, 07:45 AM

All of the disaccord towards Manning for not signing with the Chiefs....While I wish he would have signed with the Chiefs instead of the Broncos, I don;t see why all of the sudden folks bash him as a PERSON.

Afterall, we did have a GREAT TE that WANTED OUT because he did not want to be on a LOSER team and WANTED to WIN yet he still gets love...Sheesh!

chiefnut

03-20-2012, 08:21 AM

All of the disaccord towards Manning for not signing with the Chiefs....While I wish he would have signed with the Chiefs instead of the Broncos, I don;t see why all of the sudden folks bash him as a PERSON.

Afterall, we did have a GREAT TE that WANTED OUT because he did not want to be on a LOSER team and WANTED to WIN yet he still gets love...Sheesh!

nothing worse than a scorned lover!!!:punk:

dbolan

03-20-2012, 09:05 AM

The deal with Manning can be worked without total detriment to their cap by using signing bonuses, incentives and other language to ladle out the cash over time.

dbolan

03-20-2012, 09:05 AM

nothing worse than a scorned lover!!!:punk:

Haha! Very true!:lol:

reded

03-20-2012, 10:10 AM

I would have no problem getting rid of tebow and taking my risk on manning to be my franchise qb. (They really don't have to get rid of tebow) They are also expected to sign jeff saturday, stokley, Tamme and Dallas Clark. (They are visiting)

Plus the last thing we need to worry about is being over the cap

So are they renaming the team the Denver Colts?

matthewschiefs

03-20-2012, 11:35 AM

I would have no problem getting rid of tebow and taking my risk on manning to be my franchise qb. (They really don't have to get rid of tebow) They are also expected to sign jeff saturday, stokley, Tamme and Dallas Clark. (They are visiting)

Plus the last thing we need to worry about is being over the cap

Do you recall what getting old got us. It got us rebuilding and 2-14. Denver's bringing in OLD talent and there best FA pickup is not only old but there is a BIG question on if he can hold up. It's very risky but it does have a huge upside as well. But after a couple of years there going to have to start rebuilding looking for a new qb. And they let go a young qb that got them to the playoffs and won a playoff game with them. I like our offseason better.

dbolan

03-20-2012, 11:44 AM

So are they renaming the team the Denver Colts?

Just liek we are now the New Cleveland Chiefs! :D

Seek

03-20-2012, 12:40 PM

The deal with Manning can be worked without total detriment to their cap by using signing bonuses, incentives and other language to ladle out the cash over time.

It can, however, usually when you have many many teams bidding on you your market goes up and the incentives and bonuses clauses turn into Guarantees or they run the risk of losing that player.

Fact of the matter. The beloved John Elway, loved by all in Donkey land made enemies and lost a lot of his popularity by not siding with Tebow the entire year. Tebow put Elway in a bad spot by winning the fans over. How could he replace Tebow with a true franchise pocket passing QB that he desired for the franchise without upsetting the fans even more? The only way to get of the TEbow Train and hurting his franchise for years without having all the fans hating him was by signing big name player that will trump the Tebow Love. Enter Peyton Manning! The answer to Elways fan problems.

nigeriannightmare

03-20-2012, 01:03 PM

All of the disaccord towards Manning for not signing with the Chiefs....While I wish he would have signed with the Chiefs instead of the Broncos, I don;t see why all of the sudden folks bash him as a PERSON.

Afterall, we did have a GREAT TE that WANTED OUT because he did not want to be on a LOSER team and WANTED to WIN yet he still gets love...Sheesh!

I believe all the dislike for peyton started when he refused to even come in for a visit.

Seek

03-20-2012, 01:26 PM

I believe all the dislike for peyton started when he refused to even come in for a visit.

My dislike has come from watching him on the field at arrowhead yelling at his coach for not going for it on 4th and 8 from their 50. For one it meant he did not respect the Chiefs or arrowhead, and yelling at his coach for not going for it on 4th and 8 was not really the best decision for the team, and not his call. While he may believe he is more important than the coach, he still needs to listen to the coach.

dbolan

03-20-2012, 01:41 PM

My dislike has come from watching him on the field at arrowhead yelling at his coach for not going for it on 4th and 8 from their 50. For one it meant he did not respect the Chiefs or arrowhead, and yelling at his coach for not going for it on 4th and 8 was not really the best decision for the team, and not his call. While he may believe he is more important than the coach, he still needs to listen to the coach.

4th down conversion rates have been at the 50% mark since around 2002. If you are on the 50 yard line and convert, you are in great field position, plus you are NOT "giving" the ball back to the other team and you are not risking a great return or a botched high snap to the punter.

I would have been pissed too. LOL

OPLookn

03-20-2012, 02:07 PM

4th down conversion rates have been at the 50% mark since around 2002. If you are on the 50 yard line and convert, you are in great field position, plus you are NOT "giving" the ball back to the other team and you are not risking a great return or a botched high snap to the punter.

I would have been pissed too. LOL

Even if it is 50% or slightly more going for it on 4th and 8 from the 50 is not a 50% probability. In 2011 there were 430 fourth down conversions were attempted with 186 successful for a 43% success rate.

The success rate of a fourth down conversion goes down significantly with each successive yard needed. Hence going for it on 4th and 8 is lunacy unless it's the last time you'll have the ball and you have to score.

It's cool that Manning has that much belief in himself and his team. However saying that they should have gone for it on 4th and 8 because every other 4th down tried is successful is skewing statistics wildly to suit what you're wanting to say.

Seek

03-20-2012, 02:18 PM

4th down conversion rates have been at the 50% mark since around 2002. If you are on the 50 yard line and convert, you are in great field position, plus you are NOT "giving" the ball back to the other team and you are not risking a great return or a botched high snap to the punter.

I would have been pissed too. LOL

50% from 4th and 8? I can understand a 4th and 1 or inches, but 4th and 8 after the Chiefs just got down covering the 3rd down very well and Peyton tried forcing a pass.

dbolan

03-20-2012, 03:51 PM

Even if it is 50% or slightly more going for it on 4th and 8 from the 50 is not a 50% probability. In 2011 there were 430 fourth down conversions were attempted with 186 successful for a 43% success rate.

The success rate of a fourth down conversion goes down significantly with each successive yard needed. Hence going for it on 4th and 8 is lunacy unless it's the last time you'll have the ball and you have to score.

It's cool that Manning has that much belief in himself and his team. However saying that they should have gone for it on 4th and 8 because every other 4th down tried is successful is skewing statistics wildly to suit what you're wanting to say.

No it is not.

OPLookn

03-20-2012, 04:10 PM

No it is not.

I can say with 100% certainty that the 4th down conversion rate for 4th and 8 is NOT 50%. Either you were staying that 4th and 8 conversion rate is 50% and you agree that Manning should have been pissed and are wrong or I misread your original post.

KCCF

03-20-2012, 04:11 PM

No it is not.

How is it not? You are saying everytime the chiefs have the ball at midfield and its 4th down we should go for it because we have a 40% chance to make it and if we don't its no big deal?

matthewschiefs

03-20-2012, 09:13 PM

Getting young? So yo uwant to pick up brady quinn? Peyton manning is head and shoulders above any player we have right now. What is your other option Matt Cassel? Please. We could of kept cassel and manning.

He didnt play for one year and the organization went to absolute pieces, the GM is fired, coach is fired, back up qb is released and they went what 2-14?

I don't no if you understood what I was saying. For years and years we built our team by signing free agents that were near the end of there playing days. That will catch up with you. We didn't just get to the 2-14 point in 2008 because Herm Edwards was a bad head coach. We got there because the talent that we did have got old and couldn't play at the high level they once did to go along with Herm Edwards being a bad head coach.

Denver is starting to do the same thing. They are bringing in a 36 year old Qb they are also most likely bringing in a 36 year old center. How much longer do you think there going to play? 3 4 years at most. Then what? They will have to go right back to rebuilding.

compare that to our offseason we added a 28 year old RT. We sign a 26 year old RB whos had 1 good season in a bad place to a 1 year deal to give him a chance to prove himself. We got younger talent who can be around LONGER and not even near the coast that one of there 36 year old guys will cost. Between the two offseasons I like ours WAY BETTER

I would have been excited if we signed Manning I will admit. If you told me I could pick from Matt Cassel or Peyton Manning I would pick Peyton. But with everything eles that Denver is doing I think that our offseason is going far better and will be far better for us long term.

chief31

03-21-2012, 12:09 AM

My dislike has come from watching him on the field at arrowhead yelling at his coach for not going for it on 4th and 8 from their 50. For one it meant he did not respect the Chiefs or arrowhead, and yelling at his coach for not going for it on 4th and 8 was not really the best decision for the team, and not his call. While he may believe he is more important than the coach, he still needs to listen to the coach.

Odds are that he was yelling about something on a prior play-call, or something else. But no way to know either way.

But, even if he was mad that he wasn't allowed to go for it, that does not mean that he did not have any respect for The Chiefs, and certainly didn't mean anything about his respect for Arrowhead. It would likely mean that he sees a hole that he could easily take advantage of.

It is a competitive drive to win. The term "all about the money" does not apply to Peyton Manning. He is all about the game of football, and the money is a result.

That term does not really apply to the vast majority of the players that it gets used against.

KristofLaw

03-21-2012, 12:36 AM

Odds are that he was yelling about something on a prior play-call, or something else. But no way to know either way.

But, even if he was mad that he wasn't allowed to go for it, that does not mean that he did not have any respect for The Chiefs, and certainly didn't mean anything about his respect for Arrowhead. It would likely mean that he sees a hole that he could easily take advantage of.

It is a competitive drive to win. The term "all about the money" does not apply to Peyton Manning. He is all about the game of football, and the money is a result.

That term does not really apply to the vast majority of the players that it gets used against.

:lol: He just signed for 96 million and all along he knew what he was after. Man is this guy good at fleecing folks.

chief31

03-21-2012, 12:39 AM

:lol: He just signed for 96 million and all along he knew what he was after. Man is this guy good at fleecing folks.

Yep. Money second.

TopekaRoy

03-21-2012, 01:28 AM

4th down conversion rates have been at the 50% mark since around 2002. If you are on the 50 yard line and convert, you are in great field position, plus you are NOT "giving" the ball back to the other team and you are not risking a great return or a botched high snap to the punter.

I would have been pissed too. LOL

That's the conversion rate for all 4th down attempts and most of those are for only one or two yards (or less). In fact the conversion rate for 4th down attempts is only over 50% for 3 yds or less. At 4th and 8 the success rate is only around 30%. When you have a 7 in 10 chance of failing and you are out of FG range, the smart thing to do is punt and pin your opponent back deep.

dbolan

03-21-2012, 07:44 AM

How is it not? You are saying everytime the chiefs have the ball at midfield and its 4th down we should go for it because we have a 40% chance to make it and if we don't its no big deal?

At mid-field yes. And by the way, it is a 50% chance on 4th down conversions.

Why GIVE the ball back, particularly if we are behind, whether it be 1st or the 4th qtr?

Seek

03-21-2012, 11:11 AM

Odds are that he was yelling about something on a prior play-call, or something else. But no way to know either way.

But, even if he was mad that he wasn't allowed to go for it, that does not mean that he did not have any respect for The Chiefs, and certainly didn't mean anything about his respect for Arrowhead. It would likely mean that he sees a hole that he could easily take advantage of.

It is a competitive drive to win. The term "all about the money" does not apply to Peyton Manning. He is all about the game of football, and the money is a result.

That term does not really apply to the vast majority of the players that it gets used against.

No, He clearly didn't want to get off the field. This was the home game that we won against Indy the year after the NO Punt Play off game. Gunther was doing a pretty decent job against him, but I can understand his argument, but it is not his place to yell at TONY Dungy questioning his decision in front of everyone.

As a Chiefs fan, it annoyed me. Just something I lost respect over. He was clearly disrespecting my team against his coaches wishes.

Seek

03-21-2012, 11:19 AM

At mid-field yes. And by the way, it is a 50% chance on 4th down conversions.

Why GIVE the ball back, particularly if we are behind, whether it be 1st or the 4th qtr?

Because there is a chance you pin them on the 1 or 5. Making them get conservative with their play calling making it a 3 and out for just a couple yards. Then you have a chance to block a punt with a shorter distance to kick from the line of scrimmage increasing. You also get the ball around the 50 with a fresh set of downs and possible better field position.

Or you can go for it, and fail. Turn the ball over on the 50. Allow the Chiefs who had a pretty decent offense when this happened half a field to score on. This was still under Vermeil and Trent Green.

OPLookn

03-21-2012, 12:05 PM

At mid-field yes. And by the way, it is a 50% chance on 4th down conversions.

Why GIVE the ball back, particularly if we are behind, whether it be 1st or the 4th qtr?

Because there is a saying I know you have to be familiar with. Football is a game of inches. But instead of inches you want to give them feet?

You clearly want to use statistics to say what you want. As Roy said that 50% you quote is for 4th and 3 or less yards to go. I'm not sure where Roy got his 30% but we'll go with it. So you have less than a one in three chance of making it...but by all means "give" the ball back to them. Tell you what, I'll bet you a hundred bucks on every 4th and 8 and the we can settle up at the end of the season. What am I going to buy with all that money...Chiefs season tickets sound good to me!

:lol:

chief31

03-21-2012, 01:00 PM

No, He clearly didn't want to get off the field. This was the home game that we won against Indy the year after the NO Punt Play off game. Gunther was doing a pretty decent job against him, but I can understand his argument, but it is not his place to yell at TONY Dungy questioning his decision in front of everyone.

As a Chiefs fan, it annoyed me. Just something I lost respect over. He was clearly disrespecting my team against his coaches wishes.

You interpretted disrespect. That does not mean that it was there. You don't know what he said. You have just made up whatever you feel like, and blamed him for saying it.

Hate him if you want. He isn't a Chiefs player, and never will be. But you are inventing reasons to do it.

dbolan

03-21-2012, 01:06 PM

You interpretted disrespect. That does not mean that it was there. You don't know what he said. You have just made up whatever you feel like, and blamed him for saying it.

Hate him if you want. He isn't a Chiefs player, and never will be. But you are inventing reasons to do it.

Amen.

TopekaRoy

03-21-2012, 01:43 PM

I'm not sure where Roy got his 30% but we'll go with it.

I'll be honest. I guessed!

I tried to find the stat with Google but the closest I could come was an article that said the conversion rate in the Big 10 on 4th and 8 was 32%. I figure the Big 10 is a pretty good defensive league, but it would probably be a little harder to get a 1st down in the NFL, since that stat would include the best teams in the Big 10 playing the worst and there is more parity in the NFL.

So I figure "around" 30% is a very good estimate. My hunch is that it is probably a bit lower than that. If anyone can find specific data, please share!

OPLookn

03-21-2012, 01:47 PM

I'll be honest. I guessed!

I tried to find the stat with Google but the closest I could come was an article that said the conversion rate in the Big 10 on 4th and 8 was 32%. I figure the Big 10 is a pretty good defensive league, but it would probably be a little harder to get a 1st down in the NFL, since that stat would include the best teams in the Big 10 playing the worst and there is more parity in the NFL.

So I figure "around" 30% is a very good estimate. My hunch is that it is probably a bit lower than that. If anyone can find specific data, please share!

No worries, I did some searching too. I found several articles that talked about conversion rates and that most like you said were 3 yards or less. But simply from a logical standpoint if they give you 4 downs to make 10 yards you're not going to convert 8 yards on one down 50% of the time. If they did we'd have 3 downs to convert 10 yards or something like that since 4 yards can be made on every play (8 yards times 50%).

I saw that, but those are aggregate totals for all 4th down conversion attempts. They aren't broken down by distance. And even there, it was only above 50% in '02, '06 and '08. It was below 50% in '03, '04, '05 and '07 and there are no figures for '09, '10 and '11, so you can't tell if that number is trending up or down.

dbolan

03-21-2012, 02:15 PM

Here is a link that is interesting..>There are 3 parts, so you will have to folow the read...

Inside the 10 the Conversion rate on 4th and 8 is 30%, but outside the 10 it increases to about 37%. That's quite a bit higher than I thought it would be, but I'm guessing, you only go for it on 4th and 8 against really bad defenses.

OPLookn

03-21-2012, 04:03 PM

There you go. Part 3 has the info I was looking for.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2612/3696016235_5df243c99b_o.png

Inside the 10 the Conversion rate on 4th and 8 is 30%, but outside the 10 it increases to about 37%. That's quite a bit higher than I thought it would be, but I'm guessing, you only go for it on 4th and 8 against really bad defenses.

Even then 1/3rd is far less than 1/2. Not to mention that at the 50 yard line all a team needs is a couple of first downs to get into field goal range. You're more likely to fail than succeed and the price for failing is too high. Again if I'm taking the failing side of converting I'll bet a 63% chance til the end of the season.

jap1

03-21-2012, 04:08 PM

But ... it always worked for me to go for it on 4th down when I used to play Madden!!!!

Seek

03-21-2012, 05:39 PM

You interpretted disrespect. That does not mean that it was there. You don't know what he said. You have just made up whatever you feel like, and blamed him for saying it.

Hate him if you want. He isn't a Chiefs player, and never will be. But you are inventing reasons to do it.

Blamed who for saying what. I believe the whole point of the post from which I responded to that sparked the 4th down debate was when I didn't want him to be a chief. I disliked him from that day on. I thought he was an arrogant ace of a player and if he was not as good as he was, would be considered unexcusable. Regardless of how good he was, or how good he was with directing the players. I never liked his act on the field. Regardless of how effecient he may have been. It is my opinion and I don't claim it to be anything else.

Would that have changed if he became a Chief. Maybe, if he won for us.

Want to hear why I don't like Tom Brady? I hate his whinning about every time some actually hits him and he is looking for a flag. It has become a sin to actually hit Brady.

nigeriannightmare

03-21-2012, 10:22 PM

My dislike has come from watching him on the field at arrowhead yelling at his coach for not going for it on 4th and 8 from their 50. For one it meant he did not respect the Chiefs or arrowhead, and yelling at his coach for not going for it on 4th and 8 was not really the best decision for the team, and not his call. While he may believe he is more important than the coach, he still needs to listen to the coach.

I do most of my chiefscrowd from my phone....son desroyed it and am awaiting the new one....but yes i remember that game the oc was livid....i have never cared for indy as a franchise they are sooooo rude actually had a grandma throw popcorn at me leaving the playoff game. i dislike him too but he would have made us instantly better.

What denver went from 75-1 odds to 8-1 in vegas....hate him or not we would have been better. But eff him for not even coming for a visit.

dbolan

03-22-2012, 07:40 AM

Still some pretty good info to read! I enjoyed it!

chief31

03-23-2012, 06:18 PM

I think a big key to the 4th &8 discussion is the situations. I would think that the majority of those occur on the final drive of a game, or at least a "last desperate gasp" kind of drive.

And, in those situations, defenses tend to be playing "prevent", giving a passing game an advantage.

Though that could be analyzed even more, I think the numbers are higher than many would expect because of the types of game situations where a team would go for it.

TopekaRoy

03-23-2012, 06:26 PM

I think a big key to the 4th &8 discussion is the situations. I would think that the majority of those occur on the final drive of a game, or at least a "last desperate gasp" kind of drive.

And, in those situations, defenses tend to be playing "prevent", giving a passing game an advantage.

Though that could be analyzed even more, I think the numbers are higher than many would expect because of the types of game situations where a team would go for it.

I thought the same thing, but according to the article from which I took that graph, only 1st and 3rd quarter statistics were used.

I used only data from the 1st and 3rd quarters to exclude situations hurried by an expiring clock and by desperate teams or teams with large leads playing differently late in games.

I would've expected the success rates to be lower than they are beyond 4th and 3.

chief31

03-23-2012, 06:32 PM

I thought the same thing, but according to the article from which I took that graph, only 1st and 3rd quarter statistics were used.

I would've expected the success rates to be lower than they are beyond 4th and 3.

Wow. Guess that eliminates my theory. But I can't think of many situations where a team would go for it on 4th & 8 (+), aside from last seconds of the half, or game.

Has to be pretty rare.

TopekaRoy

03-23-2012, 06:43 PM

Wow. Guess that eliminates my theory. But I can't think of many situations where a team would go for it on 4th & 8 (+), aside from last seconds of the half, or game.

Has to be pretty rare.

I agree. Unless your team has very bad special teams and the team you are playing has a very weak defense, it doesn't make sense to me. But then again, if the defense is so bad, why is it 4th and 8?

I wonder if fake punts are included in those numbers, and would that make the success rates higher or lower?

chief31

03-23-2012, 06:50 PM

I agree. Unless your team has very bad special teams and the team you are playing has a very weak defense, it doesn't make sense to me. But then again, if the defense is so bad, why is it 4th and 8?

I wonder if fake punts are included in those numbers, and would that make the success rates higher or lower?

Good point. I bet they are, and that they increase the numbers. I mean, you just wouldn't expect that in a 4&8, nor in an odd quarter. So it would likely have a better chance of taking a defense by surprise.

Hard to say though. I didn't see any raw numbers. Not that I read the whole thing.